Rajasthan High Court Reads Down Pension Rule Restricting VRS Withdrawal, Cites Manifest Arbitrariness

Jodhpur, Rajasthan – In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has "read down" a controversial proviso to Rule 50(4) of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension Rules), 1996. The impugned proviso absolutely barred government servants from withdrawing their applications for voluntary retirement (VRS) once accepted and communicated, even if the retirement's effective date was still pending. The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Munnuri Laxman , found this unconditional restriction to be manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court directed that applications for withdrawal of VRS, made before the retirement's effective date, must now be considered on merits, including administrative convenience, rather than being rejected outright merely due to prior acceptance.

Case Background: A Plea Born from Personal Tragedy

The petitioner, Bhikam Chand , a Lab Boy in the Elementary Education department, sought voluntary retirement in October 2022 following the tragic suicide of his son. His VRS application was accepted on November 14, 2022, with an effective date of February 1, 2023. However, on December 7, 2022, Bhikam Chand , having reconsidered his decision, applied to withdraw his VRS request. This was rejected on December 13, 2022, citing the binding nature of the proviso to Rule 50(4). This led Bhikam Chand to challenge the constitutional validity of the proviso itself.

Arguments Before the Court

Petitioner's Counsel (Ms. Heli Pathak, Mr. Harshit Bhurani, Mr. Mahipal Singh Rathore): * Argued that the proviso suffered from manifest arbitrariness, unreasonableness, and irrationality . * Contended that Supreme Court precedents consistently allow VRS withdrawal any time before it becomes effective. * Stated that the 2016 amendment, introducing the restriction, contradicted settled legal principles. * Emphasized that the three-month notice period for VRS is intended to allow employees time for reflection, and an absolute bar on withdrawal post-acceptance, regardless of the pending effective date, defeats this purpose.

Respondents' Counsel (Mr. Shyam Sunder Ladrecha, AAG, assisted by Mr. Ravindra Jala ): * Submitted that a rule cannot be challenged merely for being harsh. * Argued that the rule does not impose a complete embargo, as withdrawal is possible before acceptance. * Maintained that restricting withdrawal post-acceptance is a statutory policy to prevent administrative inconvenience and chaos. * Referred to Supreme Court judgments to support the stance that acceptance makes the decision final.

Court's Scrutiny: Manifest Arbitrariness and Lack of Determining Principle

The High Court meticulously examined the scheme of Rule 50, which allows for voluntary retirement after 15 years of qualifying service with a three-month notice period. The Court noted the dual objective of this notice period: 1. For the employer: To consider administrative aspects like pending inquiries or recoveries. 2. For the employee: To reflect upon a decision often made under emotional distress, considering the significant financial difference between salary and pension.

The Court found that the proviso to Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 50 , by imposing an absolute bar on withdrawal after acceptance and communication (even if the effective date is months away), was "destructive of the main objective" of providing a reflection period.

Key observations from the judgment ([2025:RJ-JD:14994-DB]) include:

> "Such a provision, therefore, is destructive of the main objective of the provision to provide three months period so that an employee may have sufficient time to think over whether or not he should continue with his request for voluntary retirement." (Para 25)

The Court held that the rule operated unfairly, as the ability to withdraw depended on how quickly the authorities processed the acceptance. It emphasized that the jural relationship of employer-employee continues until the effective date of retirement.

> "Proceeding on a well accepted legal position that jural relationship between the employer and the employee continues till the effective date of voluntary retirement, truncating the right of withdrawal of application for voluntary retirement even before the effective date of retirement without any adequate determining principle renders the provision arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India." (Para 36)

The Court distinguished precedents cited by the State, noting that cases like Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India dealt with resignation (which can become effective immediately upon acceptance) rather than VRS with a prospective effective date. It drew support from Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India and Punjab National Bank Vs. P.K. Mittal , which underscore the employee's right to withdraw VRS/resignation before the effective date and the need for administrative flexibility.

The Court found a lack of adequate determining principle for the absolute embargo, especially when other aspects of Rule 50 (like preponement of retirement date) require consideration of administrative convenience.

> "As and when application for withdrawal of voluntary retirement is made, as long as the effective date has not arrived and retirement not taken effect... there is no reason why, in the absence of adequate determining principle put forth before the Court, such a rule of putting complete embargo on withdrawal... should not be considered on relevant aspects." (Para 39)

The petitioner's tragic personal circumstances were noted as a poignant example of why such flexibility is necessary.

The Verdict: Reading Down the Provision

Instead of striking down the proviso entirely, the Court, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Independent Thought Vs. Union of India , chose to "read down" the provision to save its constitutionality while curing its arbitrariness.

The Court ruled:

> "...we are inclined to read down proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 in the manner that even after acceptance of application for voluntary retirement and communication thereof, if an application for withdrawal of voluntary retirement is made prior to the effective date of retirement, the application will have to be considered on its own merits as also on consideration of administrative inconvenience and application for voluntary retirement may be permitted to be withdrawn in appropriate case with the prior approval of the appointing authority. Merely because, application for voluntary retirement was accepted and decision thereof communicated, the application for withdrawal of voluntary retirement should not be rejected at the threshold without application of mind to the relevant aspects of administrative inconvenience." (Para 42)

Final Order and Implications

The writ petition was allowed. The order rejecting Bhikam Chand 's application to withdraw his VRS was set aside. The case was remanded to the appointing authority for fresh consideration. The authority, if deciding against withdrawal, must provide reasons specifically related to administrative inconvenience as of the date the withdrawal application was submitted.

This judgment provides significant relief to government employees who may wish to reconsider their decision to opt for VRS due to changed circumstances, ensuring that their requests are not mechanically rejected but are considered fairly, upholding the principles of natural justice and reasonableness enshrined in Article 14.